Should musicians be on more than 30k a year
 

Im going to sound like a bit of a communist here, although that certainly isn't my intention.

Does anyone here think that succesful, famous musicians should be on more than 30k a year?

Does Madonna really need millions in her account?

Do Oasis, Coldplay or Greenday?

Does anyone?

I think not - I believe that if you choose a life of a musician, you should be happy with a stable income. Afterall, the job is entertainment in itself. I think its the same with footballers too.

I know a lot of people will disagree with me, but what are your thoughts?

Thanks!

30k ain't **** depending on where you live. I should know because I make it, and I live paycheck to pay check.

Why cap it at 30?

Does anyone need that money?
But they earned it and who's going to take it away from them? The state?

High incomes for artists reflect the importance art and music play in our society. Sales are not a direct reflection of quality as the masses don't always pick the best artist, but sales are a reflection of the importance that our culture places on the general endeavor.

Uh, 30k? Are you serious? I think it's tough for anyone to have a comfortable living on 30k.

As for the real question at hand, should musicians have a cap on their income...I don't really think so. Part of me does think that corporation CEOs, CFOs, etc. should have a cap on their income, but the other part of me says "why?" (assuming their business is legit, of course).

You know what would be nice though? If musicians all got 30k to live off of. I could make do with 30k if all I had to do was make music.

Not saying it's practical, just saying it would be nice.

30k of what?

Dollars? Pounds? Euros? Yen?

You're kidding, right?

What.

you're using the exception of exceptions as your examples. the average musicians don't make millions.

those who do, deserve it.

there's a whole lot more going on than just performing their tunes. consider the full breadth of their productions. the studio professionals, the stage crew, the backing band, the support staff, the executives that coordinate the scale of the production and promote the artist. everyone needs to get paid for their work, and while all the trendy commies like sharing common rewards most don't like sharing common responsibilities so in the real world the people at the top make more than the people at the bottom because they've chosen to risk more from their personal lives.

consider the strain on a family when one of the founding members has to take off for weeks or months at a time for work. consider the fact that the musician has absolutely NO time off EVER. you go to the store for milk, you get recognized, you pretty much HAVE to grin and pretend like you give a crap.

when you're on that level there's no punching out at 5 in the afternoon and going back to being a regular joe. unless you happen to be Daft Punk or Buckethead.




have you ever even lived on your own yet?

Rupiah

Don't give a fuck how much they earn, as long as they churn out the records.

The core issue here us that there's a widely held belief that the more money a musician makes the less integrity they have as an artist. All valid arguments against the OP's assertion aside, why single out musicians if you're making a statement such as that? Why is it more acceptable for a CEO who truly loves what he/she does to make oodles of money, but not a musician.

Mr. Dave is very correct. There are so many variables to consider when trying to asses how wealthy an artist is based on their success. When you purchase a CD or concert ticket there's an entire hierarchy of people, businesses, and organizations that get a chunk of that money before the artist sees a cent of it. More often than not, the artist is on the bottom rung of that hierarchy, and often doesn't see a cent of profit from the sale. This is especially true today with CD sales. Retailers take such an enormous percentage of the profit and what remains gets filtered through record companies and all other related bureaucracies until there's nothing left when it finally gets to the artist.

You would be surprised the amount of "rock stars" who you would assume are rolling in dough, but aren't because they have terrible contracts, or don't have the sense to understand that being successful as an artist is every bit as much like running a business as any other endeavor that involves the exchange of goods an services for revenue. And just like sidewinder and Big3 said, 30k ain't jack anymore, and most musicians work hard enough at what they do to deserve to make much more than that. Sadly, surprisingly, many of them don't.

Not to mention the young drug addicts. I think it was the VH1 special on Megadeth where Dave Ellefson said that during the So Far, So Good... tour he noticed the irony of having thousands of fans clamoring for him to sign their t-shirts and regarding him as if he was obviously rich and famous while he was actually deep in debt and any cash he got went straight to his drug habit.

aint that the same story with Alice in Chains old bass player? Dudes on that Vh1 rehab show.

^

Not to mention Layne Staley himself...

Well to be honest, if they're earning a good wage and piss it all away on drugs and stupid **** like that, that's their own fault.

Good, well argued-reasoning there.:confused:

On topic, it just dosn't make sense that you'd cap anyone's wages at 30,000 quid when you bear in mind that within our economic system they earn X amount of money because enough people are happy to give them theirs. Bearing in mind the music industry is very much a for-profit system out of necessity at the level of recording and distribution, it makes no sense to take the capitalist element out and remove any incentive to promote one's work.

In short, OP is possibly the most implausible thing ever suggested.

well that's true, but that also applies to anyone who's able to mask a drug addiction and put on a 'normal' face in the office or at any other job.

the latest salient point was the misconception that all touring musicians were millionaires, while some of the debts stem from drugs and/or poor financial judgement, it could easily be cars, houses, etc. it's just that touring musicians tend to be more susceptible to drug abuse and addiction due to the traditionally sensitive nature of an artist coupled with the legitimate stress and strain applied to their personal lives.

Well the same goes for cars and houses, if they're getting a decent amount of money and blow on anything like that then we shouldn't feel bad for them, it's their own fault.

. <---this is where you are















































this is where the point you're still missing is ---------------> .

So people shouldn't want transport and shelter. I like this bloke.

Somehow we're akin to believing that a musician's poor financial decisions are of a different nature, than anyone else who has poor money management skills. There are urban planners that go out and buy sports cars when they don't have the equity to justify such a decision. There are, I'm sure, plumbers with terrible drug habits that naturally skew there fiscal priorities, as an aside it's fairly likely that they both make more than 30k a year. To be blunt, why do we isolate the case of the musician abusing drugs and making poor financial decisions and try to tenuously relate it to their chosen profession? the music industry and the lifestyle of what I'll loosely refer to as a 'rock star' with replete is pitfalls and dangers, but on the other hand, so is life. The question is "why doesn't a professional musician, specifically, deserve to be paid what he/she's worth?". The answer is they do deserve to be paid the value of their product, and more often than not, they aren't.

And they shouldn't have any sympathy either.

I was only commenting on everyone posting making it sound like we should feel bad for broke musicians who spent all their money on drugs.

I hope you didn't sense sympathy out of my post about Megadeth being huge rock stars who were in debt and hopelessly addicted to drugs. That's not the point at all. C'mon, keep up - nobody is talking about sympathy but you.

Capping people's money? The government shouldn't be deciding how much people can make. This is America bud, we were built on oppurtunity and freedom. If you want the government telling everybody how to spend their money, move to Europe.

Actually "this" isn't America, it's the internet, and it's inhabited by people from all over the world.

Why would you move to Europe for that when it's predominately capitalist?

You know I actually feel sorry for some of the American members of the boards having the rest of the world think you're as un-educated & ill informed as this person seems to be.

Well, I was taught by your generation bro! If you really want to go there, blame the kids. But your generation (of Americans, obviously you're not one) made it illegal to smack kids in school, made Child Protective Services, and all that "good" stuff. Now parents can't even discipline their kids without worrying about the neighbor ratting them out. Don't get me wrong, I support CPS... I just don't support the way they do business... taking calls from some anonymous schmuck down the street and the screws come knockin'! My dad was in the military, so he yelled a lot, and we had a few visits from those kiddie cops.

Anyway, I think everybody knows Europeans can't get rich as easily as they can in America. Sweden's taxes are like 80 something percent. Why should the government get to decide how much someone can make?

Because the state provides the necessary educational, infrastructural and legal aid for economies to prosper. You'll find that unlike in the US, it is far easier to improve one's lot in life in Sweden,Finland or even Ireland as a result of the state's welfare system creating opportunities.

There's welfare in the US. I think a little too much. Is it my fault some chick had sex with 20 different guys and had 6 kids? Why should I have to work my ass off and pay for her lack of self discipline? Those kids are her responsibilty, not mine. People need to start accepting responsibilty for their own actions, and not count on the government and MY MONEY.

Can we just ban this idiot before he continues to embarrass himself? God knows we don't need a fucking America vs. the world flame war.

At least stick to the topic.

What about the idea of the individual being a part of a collective, and therefore having to ensure a strong collective in order to protect their own safety, employment and wellbeing.

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't actually "work your ass off" at all?

That isn't capping income like you said.

My generation? All that stuff was in place long before I was old enough to vote. How old do you think I am exactly?

You and Obama would get along fabulously.

:rolleyes:

What about the idea of having your own ideas, being an individual, instead of being a follower like everybody in the collective?

Obviously, there is no right or wrong answer to this, but your beliefs. But at least on my side of the argument, you can choose whether you want to be a part of a collective or whether you want to be an individual. The way I see it, if I work for 500k a year (which I don't make), then I should have more of a right to decide where it goes than the government.

People can make their own charitible decisions, but if I don't want to be charitable then it's my decision. It's my money after all right, MY MAN! :usehead: This is what will weed out those greedy selfish bastards and the truly good people, and if you're religious, God will reward those good people, and if you're not religious at least you have the satisfaction that you did something good on your own.

I would be more than happy to give to charity, as long as I have a say in what charity my money goes to. With the government, I wouldn't.

P.S. What's with the name calling lucifer sam? Get a life ya schmuck. :beer:

Does anyone really need to limit the amount of money you make because you're good at what you do? I wouldn't think so. With whatever job you choose when you grow up, you should ask them to please pay you $30,000 a year and tell them that you love your job and you don't need lots of money. Getting to work is your reward. See how well it works out for you. And by the way, most musicians are working a hell of a lot more than 40 hours a week.

isn't that exactly how it already works with all the CEO bailouts, corporate political lobbyists, etc.

you ever actually work a job to support yourself independently from your folks?